Editor and journalist Xhabir Deralla expects a serious review of the case with the first instance unlawful verdict in favor of VMRO-DPMNE President HristijanMickoski for slander, because, as he says, the politician is abusing the verdict in accomplishing goals directed against freedom of speech and democracy.
According to the journalist, Mickoski’s attack has the character of a personal confrontation, but the goal is to discredit and intimidate dissenters, and especially those with progressive ideas and opinions.
“This is what the shame of the lies of the government looks like, once again they have been condemned for slandering. On the great Christian holiday of Lent, they ran campaigns with lies, insults and fabrications after who knows how many times in these five years against me and my family. They wanted to equate me with them and portray me as a political profiteer and criminal. For this purpose, SDSM and DUI involved all their media servants to insult me and the honor of my family with lies, fabrications and constructions. They thought that this way they would gain some political points in a short time. They failed…, and today I received the first instance judgment, and one of those media servants has been convicted of committing slander, by presenting untruths and has been obliged to publish the judgement in a daily newspaper at his expense.www.frontline.mk has violated Article 8 of the ECHR as well as the Code of Journalists of Macedonia. Maybe a small consolation, but enough for personal satisfaction…” wrote Mickoski on social media on June 20, after the announcement of the verdict.
In Deralla’s analysis it is stated that in this post there are dangerous precedents, which might have a long – term negative impact on the work of the media and freedom of speech in general.
Firstly because of the use of the expression “the government’s lies” – is that the legacy of Gruevski, according to whom the media “naturally” belongs to the government. That is, no difference is made between media, civil society and government, which was a characteristic of the “captured state” in 2016.
Part of the remarks also refer to not restraining from playing around with the citizens’ religious feelings. Mentioning the “great Christian holiday” is completely irrelevant in the entire context and according to Deralla this has the goal of inciting religious hate speech, manipulating the religious feelings of the citizens.
The editor clarifies that everything started with a text that was conveyed in several portals, and even in those where he is responsible, but because of Mickoski’s reaction with which he insulted, slandered, and threatened he did not receive an apology for the text.
At the same time, the disputed part of Mickoski’s Facebook post in which he himself writes that in the “disputed” posts he was called a profiteer and criminal, is also criticized, even though such claims do not exist in the text.
Furthermore, by politicizing matters, Mickoski blames that behind the text are media servants and that they use “lies, fabrications, and constructions”. Deralla comments that Mickoski wants to be the main oppositionist, but he has a big problem with criticism. It is precisely because of these reasons that the journalist raises the question whether he should also file a lawsuit because of these qualifications.
Deralla says it is his duty to alarm the public that the target is not only him, but rather freedom of speech. The biggest danger and precedent, according to the journalist, is that Mickoski highlights the fact from the verdict, which in part is based on the Convention for Protection of Humans Rights, more precisely,Article 8: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
-This means that anyone who ever dares in the future to write something that doesn’t suit Mickoski or any other politician, could be charged and convicted according to this article, even if it is a conveyed statement or text, for which responsibility has not been provided for in the Macedonian laws. I cannot, even if I wanted to, violate Mickoski’s human rights. On the contrary, he has a position that allows him to do so. writes Deralla.
